Facts:

The appellants (plaintiffs) filed a civil suit against the respondents (defendants) seeking various reliefs including a declaration of title, permanent injunction, and possession of the disputed property.

The respondents contested the suit, arguing that it was barred by limitation.

The Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the suit was filed within the applicable limitation period.

However, the High Court reversed this decision, holding that the suit was indeed barred by limitation.

Issues:

Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation.

Interpretation of Article 65 of the Limitation Act in the context of the facts of the case.

Held:

The plaintiffs filed the civil suit within 12 years from the date of the attachment order dated 23.12.1966, which was issued during proceedings under Section 145 of the CrPC.

The cause of action for the plaintiffs arose when the defendants asserted their rights over the property during the Section 145 CrPC proceedings, leading to the attachment order.

Therefore, the suit was filed within the limitation period prescribed under Article 65 of the Limitation Act.

The plaintiffs had rightly filed the suit for declaration and possession in response to the defendants' assertions of rights over the property.

The High Court erred in its interpretation of the law regarding limitation, and its judgment on the question of limitation is legally unsustainable.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment on the question of limitation, and restored the Trial Court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

Facts:

The appellant was convicted under Sections 302/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court, reversing her acquittal by the trial court.

The incident occurred on 27th March 2006, resulting in the death of two individuals and injuries to another.

Witness testimonies, particularly that of the injured witness (PW2) and the appellant's daughter (PW4), played a crucial role in establishing the appellant's guilt.

Issues:

Whether the appellant's conviction under Sections 302/307/34 IPC was justified.

Whether differential treatment in sentencing the appellant compared to other co-accused was warranted.

Held:

The credibility of witnesses, including PW2 and PW4, was emphasized. Minor discrepancies or inconsistencies in their testimonies were considered insignificant.

The injured witness's testimony was deemed reliable despite her young age and emotional distress during cross-examination.

The court upheld the appellant's conviction under Sections 302/307/34 IPC, considering the corroborative evidence provided by PW4 and the injured witness (PW2).

The principle of proportionality in sentencing was applied, and differential treatment of the appellant compared to other co-accused was deemed unjustified.

The direction to deny remission to the appellant for twenty-five years was set aside.

The appeal was allowed only to the extent of setting aside the direction for denial of remission to the appellant for twenty-five years.

Facts:

The appellant, Meena Verma, was appointed as a part-time female member in the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

The second respondent challenged this appointment through a writ petition before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, alleging discrimination.

The High Court quashed Meena Verma's appointment and directed the Commission to reconsider the appointment of the writ petitioner.

Issues:

Whether the State Government's appointment of Meena Verma was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Whether the Selection Committee's recommendation was disregarded in making the appointment.

Held:

The Court held: "In the absence of any Rule or any executive instruction, when the Committee had drawn a panel on the basis of performance and placed the candidates in seriatim on the basis of the said performance, we are disposed to think that the High Court correctly expressed the opinion that the addition of public experience was uncalled for."

Therefore, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash Meena Verma's appointment, finding no merit in her appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

Facts:

The case pertains to a dispute involving disqualification under section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958. The encroachment in question was not directly by the candidate herself but by her husband and father-in-law.

Issues:

Whether the disqualification under section 14(1)(j-3) is applicable when the encroachment is by individuals associated with the candidate rather than the candidate herself.

The scope of interpretation regarding the term "person" in section 14(1)(j-3) and its relevance to encroachment.

Held:

The court, after considering the provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958, including Sections 10, 11, and 53, emphasized the duty of elected Panchayat members to address encroachments on government or public land.

The term "person" in Section 14(1)(j-3) should not be narrowly construed, as it would render the issue of encroachment redundant. The legislative intent is to address encroachment strictly, with the Panchayat having the power to remove such encroachments.

Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and held that a candidate sharing an encroached property and continuing to reside there should be considered disqualified under section 14(1)(j-3). This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to prevent conflicts of interest and protect public properties.

Facts:

The deceased was involved in a fatal accident while riding his motorcycle.

His family filed a claim petition seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation, which was later appealed to the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The High Court enhanced the compensation, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court by the Insurance Company.

Issues:

Assessment of compensation in a fatal accident case under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Validity of the High Court's enhancement of compensation.

Determination of the deceased's dependents and their entitlement to compensation.

Held:

The Supreme Court modified the High Court's decision regarding the percentage of future prospects, reducing it to 40% instead of 50%.

The deduction from the deceased's income at 1/3rd was upheld, considering the circumstances of the family.

The Court affirmed the High Court's decision on the assessment of the deceased's income and the status of his dependents.

Compensation under the heads of Loss of Estate and Loss of Filial Consortium, not awarded by the lower courts, were granted by the Supreme Court.

The total compensation awarded was revised, and the Insurance Company and the driver of the vehicle were held jointly and severally liable to pay it.

The appeal was disposed of by the Supreme Court in the terms mentioned in the judgment.

Facts:

Zhejiang Bonly Elevator Guide Rail Manufacture Co. Ltd. (the petitioner), a Chinese company, and Jade Elevator Components (the respondent), an Indian partnership firm, entered into a Commission Processing Contract on 11.09.2014.

Disputes arose during the contract performance, prompting the petitioner to seek resolution through arbitration.

The respondent disputed the invocation of arbitration and argued for litigation in court.

Issues:

Whether the arbitration clause in the contract mandates arbitration or allows for litigation in court.

Interpretation of Clause 15 of the contract regarding dispute resolution.

Held:

The court held that Clause 15 of the contract provided an option for either arbitration or litigation in court. Since the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause, the court appointed Justice Prakash Prabhakar Naolekar, a former judge of the Supreme Court, as the sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes.

The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the arbitration clause and the intention of the parties. It emphasized the importance of examining the language of the clause and previous legal precedents to determine the appropriate dispute resolution mechanism.

This decision aligns with previous cases such as INDTEL Technical Services Private Limited v. W.S. Atkins Rail Limited, where the intention of the parties regarding dispute resolution was considered paramount.

Therefore, the arbitration petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed on either party.

Facts:

Mr. Anil Lunia, an industrialist, conducted illegal mining activities in the State of Chhattisgarh, specifically in Bhainsakanhar, District Kanker, without adhering to approved plans and conditions. Despite warnings and complaints, Mr. Lunia continued his operations, which included illicit felling of trees in violation of the Forest Conservation Act. A Central Empowered Committee (CEC) investigated the matter and found significant irregularities and violations committed by Mr. Lunia.

Issues:

The legality of Mr. Lunia's mining activities, the actions taken by the State Government in response to these violations, and the necessity of further investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Held:

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the CEC's findings and the actions taken by the State Government, concluded that further investigation by the CBI was unnecessary. The Court acknowledged the State Government's efforts in addressing the violations, including initiating disciplinary proceedings against erring officials and blacklisting Mr. Lunia. Therefore, the Court disposed of the applications concerning Mr. Lunia accordingly.

Facts:

The case involved allegations of espionage against scientists of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), including the appellant-scientist, S. Nambi Narayanan. The appellant suffered custody for almost fifty days based on these allegations. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) later reported that the allegations were false, and all accused were discharged. However, the State Government decided to conduct a re-investigation, which was challenged by the appellant.

Issues:

Whether the appellant's arrest was malicious and violated his fundamental rights, specifically his right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Whether compensation should be awarded to the appellant for the harassment and anguish caused by the wrongful arrest.

Whether further action should be taken against the officials responsible for the appellant's arrest and harassment.

Held:

The Court found that the appellant's arrest was indeed malicious and caused immense harm. The entire prosecution initiated by the State police was deemed malicious, as the allegations against the appellant were ultimately found to be false. The appellant suffered mental agony and humiliation during his custody, which violated his right to life with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution (Para 29, 31, 36).

Compensation was deemed warranted under the public law remedy for the violation of the appellant's fundamental rights. The State of Kerala was directed to pay Rs. 50 lakhs as compensation to the appellant. Additionally, the appellant was permitted to proceed with a civil suit for further compensation (Para 39).

A committee headed by Justice D.K. Jain, a former Judge of the Supreme Court, was constituted to take appropriate steps against the erring officials responsible for the appellant's wrongful arrest and harassment (Para 40).

Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the Court held that compensation should be awarded to the appellant for the violation of his fundamental rights. Furthermore, a committee was constituted to take appropriate action against the officials responsible for the appellant's wrongful arrest and harassment.

Facts:

The case revolved around the directives issued in Rajesh Sharma and Others v. State of U.P. and Another, [2017] 9 SCR 529, concerning matrimonial disputes, specifically related to Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Issues:

Whether the directions issued in the Rajesh Sharma case regarding Section 498-A of IPC required reconsideration.

The permissibility and legality of various directives issued in the Rajesh Sharma case.

Held:

The Court examined the directives issued in Rajesh Sharma and found that certain directions, such as the constitution of Family Welfare Committees and their powers, were impermissible as they extended beyond the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Regarding settlement of cases, the Court clarified that settlements in non-compoundable criminal proceedings could be quashed by the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC, with parties approaching the High Court for such matters.

The Court directed that complaints under Section 498-A IPC should be investigated by designated officers trained in accordance with Supreme Court principles on arrests.

Certain protective measures, such as Red Corner Notices, clubbing of cases, and bail conditions, were deemed appropriate and in line with legal provisions.

Settlements should be approached under Section 482 of the CrPC, with the High Court disposing of such matters in accordance with established principles.

Decision: The Court modified and clarified the directives issued in Rajesh Sharma regarding matrimonial disputes and Section 498-A IPC, ensuring adherence to legal provisions and principles while ensuring fair handling of disputes.